The series of events surrounding the ‘May 13′ riot has been documented by DrKua Kia Soong in his latest book *May 13: Declassified Documents on theMalaysian Riots of 1969* which will be launched on Sunday in conjunctionwith the 38th anniversary of the tragedy.

This compilation, based on various sets of foreign dispatches andconfidential reports at the time - which were declassified recently and madeavailable at the Public Records Office in London - has been dubbed as thefirst credible account on the incident.

“The real circumstances surrounding the worst racial riot in the history ofMalaysia have so far not been made available to the Malaysian public. Theofficial version is fraught with contradictions and inadequacies to whichfew pay credence,” Kua wrote in the book.

Below are excerpts and summary of the chronology of events based on thedeclassified documents taken from Kua’s book:

*May 10:*

The ruling Alliance Party suffered a major setback in the general electionalthough it had managed to retain a simple parliamentary majority. They hadlost Penang to the Gerakan Party; Kelantan to the Pan-Malaysian IslamicParty while Perak and Selangor were at the brink of falling into theopposition’s hands.

*May 11 and May 12:*

On both nights, the opposition celebrated their victory. A large Gerakanprocession was held to welcome the left-wing Gerakan leader V David backfrom winning the federal seat in Penang.

*May 13:*

The MCA which had suffered badly at the polls, announced that it wouldwithdraw from the cabinet while remaining within the Alliance.

A dispatch from a foreign correspondent showed it is evident that there wasa plan for youths mobilised by Umno elements to assemble at then Selangormenteri besar Harun Idris’ residence in the late afternoon. A retaliatorymarch had been planned although police permission was withheld.

When people were still assembling for the parade, trouble broke out in thenearby Malay section of Kampung Baru, where two Chinese lorries were burnt.The ensuing carnage at Kampung Baru and Batu Road quickly spread elsewherein Kuala Lumpur.

The foreign correspondent noted the curfew that was imposed was not fairlyapplied to all.

“In the side streets off Jalan Hale, I could see bands of Malay youths armedwith *parangs* and sharpened bamboo spears assembled in full view of troopsposted at road junctions. Meanwhile, at Batu Road, a number of foreigncorrespondents saw members of the Royal Malay Regiment firing into Chineseshophouses for no apparent reason.”

Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman immediately attributed the violence astriggered off by the behaviour of opposition supporters after the electionresult announcement while his deputy Tun Abdul Razak pinned the blame on thecommunists.

*May 14: ***The riots continued but on a smaller scale. The curfew was only lifted instaggered hours in various districts to allow people to buy food. The policecalled out all possible reserves and handed over the northern part of thecity to the army.

Police put casualties for the previous night incident at 44 killed and about150 injured. Another dispatch showed the casualties were mainly Chinese asit stated that out of 77 corpses in the morgue of the General Hospital onMay 14, at least 60 were Chinese.

The government’s attempts to blame the communists for the riots were howevernot taken seriously by the officials at the British High Commission (BHC)who could see that the Tunku was not prepared to blame his own people forthe riots, nor was he going to blame it on the Chinese “as a whole”.

*May 15: ***The King proclaimed a state of emergency. The National Operations Councilheaded by Tun Razak was formed. Tun Razak was still responsible to theTunku, but all the powers under Emergency Regulations were vested in him.

The curfew had been lifted temporarily in Kuala Lumpur that morning but thesituation had rapidly worsened and more sporadic fighting had broken out.Curfews were re-imposed but food was very short.

The local press was suspended until censorship regulations could be drawn upbut no attempt was made to supervise reports sent out by foreigncorrespondents.

*May 16:*

The situation was still tense in Selangor with cars and houses being burnedand fatalities rising. Death tolls had risen to 89 with over 300 injured. 24hour curfew remained in force in Selangor and had also been imposed inMalacca. In Penang and Perak, the situation had improved although the curfewremained in force.

Tunku made a broadcast in which he announced the setting up of a NationalDefence Force to be manned by volunteers. The new information ministerHamzah Abu Samah and Tun Razak gave a press conference pinning the blame forthe riots on communist infiltration of the opposition parties.

There were reports of looting by the largely Malay military and their biasagainst the Chinese Malaysians. Number of refugees were increasing.

*May 17:*

From a BHC telegram, it showed there were skepticism among British officerstoward the official figures for fatalities and the preponderance of Chinesecasualties among the dead. The police estimated the deaths at about 100 nowwhile British officers estimated the proportion of Chinese to Malaycasualties is about 85:15.

The press censorship invited criticism not only from the local press butalso in diplomatic circles especially when official statements lackedclarity and credibility.

In a confidential BHC memorandum to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office(FCO), the *coup d’etat* has been acknowledged and it has effected thetransfer of power not only to “Malay hands” but also to the security forces.The latter’s professionalism is questioned.

The BHC also noted the Federal Reserve Unit, which at the time wasmultiracial in composition, was the more impartial of the security forceswhile the Malay troops were discriminatory in enforcing the curfew.

“Discriminatory takes the form, for example, of not, repeat not, enforcingthe curfew in one of the most violently disposed of the Malay areas in KualaLumpur (Kampung Baru) where Malays armed with *parangs,* etc continue tocirculate freely; with the inevitable result that gangs slip through thecordon round the area and attack Chinese outside it. In Chinese areas, thecurfew is strictly enforced.”

*May 18:*

The Tunku qualified his earlier assertion that the disturbances were causedby communists, putting the blame instead on assorted “bad elements”. He alsoannounced the deferment of the Sarawak elections and the continuance of therestrictions on the movement of foreign journalists.

The situation was still unsettled in some parts of the capital city.

*May 19:*

Less than a week after the riots, the reins of power had effectively passedto Tun Razak, indicating that there had been a plot to bring about the *coupd’etat. **

*”The exact relationship between Tun Razak and the Tunku is not clear. Inpublic Tun Razak says he is directly responsible to the Tunku but he hasmade it clear privately that he is completely in charge of the country. Thiscould mean the beginning of a process of withdrawal by the Tunku as aneffective PM”.

There are some 10,000 reported refugees. The local press was allowed topublish under censorship while foreign journalists had their curfew passeswithdrawn. Some opposition politicians were arrested.

*May 20:*

In a meeting, an Australian High Commissioner had suggested the oppositionleaders should be given a role as peace maker but Tun Razak and GhazaliShafie were firmly against this. “They considered opposition leaders wouldsimply use such an opportunity to promote their own political views.”

The Malaysian Red Cross Society is continuing its daily feeding programmefor refugees in various places and over 5,000 had received food supplies.

*May 21:*

The official statistics of casualties at this juncture were 137 killed (18Malays), 342 injured, 109 vehicles burned, 118 buildings destroyed and 2,912persons arrested who were mostly curfew breakers.

*May 23:*

The declassified documents reveal that Malay troops were not onlyfraternising with the Malay thugs but were discharging their firearmsindiscriminately at Chinese shophouses as they went through the city.

“When confronted by foreign correspondents with reports of racialdiscrimination, Tun Razak flatly denied them. Following this, curfew passesissued to foreign journalists were withdrawn and reporters were ordered toremain indoors ‘for their own safety’.”

Internal security and home minister Tun Dr Ismail indicated that theInternal Security Act would be in future amended to “counter changingcommunist tactics”. It was disclosed that of the 3,699 arrested during thecrisis, 952 were members of secret societies.

*May 24:*

Law and order has been re-established in Kuala Lumpur and the atmosphere inthe town had improved. People were going back to work (in non-curfew hours)and the government offices were limbering into action. The curfew remainedin force (from 3pm to 6.30am of the following day). The government was notready to admit that it was armed Malay youth who had caused thedisturbances.

*May 27:*

The Tunku was under pressure to resign as he was clearly incensed by foreignjournalists’ speculations about his weakening position and got his privatesecretary to write a protest note to the BHC.

*May 28:*

A confidential report by the BHC to the FCO on this day observed thegovernment’s attempts to blame the communists for the disturbances were anattempt to justify their new authoritarian powers.

*June:*

The riots had been under control but they were still sporadic outbreaks ofcivil disturbances. A BHC report noted violence erupted again in one part ofKuala Lumpur on the night of June 28 and 29, a number of houses were burntand the casualties were officially given as five killed and 25 injured. Somedisturbances toward the end of June also involved ethnic Indians.

*July*:

Renewed trouble in which one policeman was killed was quickly stopped fromspreading in Kuala Lumpur by positive police action.

Tun Ismail’s firm stand in ordering the security forces to act firmly‘without favour or discrimination’ to any communal group and the Tunku’sannouncement of a National Goodwill Committee made up of politicians of allparties went some way toward allaying the fears of the people.

Tun Ismail also revealed the total arrests since May now stood at 8,114,comprising people “from all the major racial groups”. Of these, 4,192 hadbeen charged in court, 675 released on bail, 1,552 unconditionally releasedand 1,695 preventively detained.

Situation in the Peninsula had improved substantially but tension remainshigh in sensitive areas of Malacca, Perak and Selangor.

Tension had begun to ease until Malay agitation connected with Tunku’sreturn to a position of influence and the removal of Dr Mahathir Mohamadfrom Umno’s general committee on July 12 had heightened it again. Malayuniversity students petitioned for Tunku’s resignation and demonstrated onthe campus.

>http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/67096>>Unveiling the ‘May 13′ riots>Beh Lih Yi May 11, 07 12:52pm>>”While people were still assembling for this parade, trouble broke out in>the nearby Malay section of Kampung Baru, where two Chinese lorries were>burnt…>>By 7.15pm, I could see the mobs swarming like bees at the junction of Jalan>Raja Muda and Batu Road. More vehicles were smashed and Chinese shophouses>set on fire.>>The Chinese and Indian shopkeepers of Batu Road formed themselves into a>’district defence force’ armed with whatever they find - parangs, poles,>iron bars and bottles…>>When the Malay invading force withdrew as quickly as it had arrived, the>residents took their revenge. Shop-fronts and cars suspected of being>Malay-owned were smashed or burnt…>>The police arrived at about 9pm but did not remain in the area. Later,>truck-loads of Federal Reserve Units (riot squads) and the Royal Malay>Regiment drove past…”>>(Excerpts taken from a dispatch by Far Eastern Economic Review>correspondent>Bob Reece narrating his eyewitness account on May 13, 1969 after a group of>young Malays gathered outside the Selangor Menteri Besar Harun Idris’>residence in late afternoon)>>It has been almost four decades since the May 13 racial riots broke out.>>What had prompted the worst riots in Malaysia’s 50-year history that cost>the lives of 196 persons (according to official records) however remained>shrouded under a veil of secrecy, although there are several versions on>the matter so far.>>The ‘official version’ of it has always been the violence was triggered off>by the Chinese-dominated opposition supporters’ provocation in celebrating>their electoral victory which saw the ruling Alliance Party suffered a>major setback.>>’Full of nonsense’>>This version, however was consistently rebutted by the opposition group>who claimed otherwise. Other theories also suggested that the riots wasrather>a planned attack to oust then premier Tunku Abdul Rahman.>>The lack of accessible information in the public domain has been astumbling>block for those who intend to uncover the episode but a set of>newly-declassified documents in London gave sociologist Dr Kua Kia Soong a>thorough glimpse of the event.>>Late last year, the principal of New Era College took a three-month>sabbatical leave to the Public Records Office in London to study records>and declassified documents on the May 13 incident after a 30-year secrecyrule>over these documents lapse.>>His findings based on the declassified documents - which have been>compiled into a new book to be launched on Sunday - found the entire May 13riots>were by no means a spontaneous outburst of racial violence, as it has been>portrayed to the Malaysian public.>>”The (official) history of May 13 is full of nonsense, it doesn’t reveal>anything. It pins the blame on the opposition party which was not true,>they were not the responsible party,” Kua told malaysiakini in a recent>interview.>>”My book shows the responsible party were those ascendent state capitalist>class (in Umno), elements within that gave rise and implemented this plan.>There was a plan based on the people who assembled at the (Selangor)>menteri besar’s house.>>”There are correspondences and intelligence reports which showed that.>Official history has to reveal that truth and not to pin the blame on>everybody around who are not to be blamed,” the educationist and social>activist stressed.>>Kua maintained the May 13 incident was a coup d’etat against the Tunku by>the then emergent Malay state capitalists - backed by the police and army>- to seize control of the reign of power from the old aristocrats toimplement>the new Malay agenda.>>A plot to oust Tunku>>He opined the riots were works of “Malay thugs” orchestrated by politicians>behind the coup.>>For instance, he said the “group of hoodlums suddenly appeared from all>over the place” on the day of May 13 to gather at Harun’s residence and the>questionable conduct of the police and army to just stood by and watch.>>He added that documents showed less than a week after the riots, thendeputy>premier Tun Abdul Razak who headed the National Operations Council was>already in full control of the country - an indication that there had beena>plot.>>On top of that, discussions for future plans had already been carried out.>>”For example the National Cultural Policy (announced in 1971) burst in the>80s, it was already been thought of one week after (the May 13 incident),”>Kua noted, referring to the controversial policy which placed emphasis on>the ‘indigenous culture’ and Islam.>>A secret document from the British cabinet office featured in the book>showed that barely a week after the riots broke out, the Central>Intelligence Agency had figured out what Tun Razak was planning - “to>formalise Malay dominance, sideline the Chinese and shelve the Tunku”.>>The role of the security forces in the May 13 bloodshed was also>questioned in Kua’s findings.>>”Even at that time, people in the diplomatic core (were wondering) how>come the day the riot broke out, Razak met with the chiefs of the policeand>army but they did not do anything,” he said.>>Interestingly, Kua pointed out the Malaysian security forces had beentested>and tried during the war against the communist insurgency between 1948 and>1960 and earned their reputation.>>”They are one of the most effective in putting down the communist>insurrection that is a far, far more difficult operation than putting down>riot, but they could not put down (such riot) in 1969 for days, for>weeks,” he questioned.>>It thus brought to Kua’s conclusion: “The May 13 was a pretext for staging>that coup… I am not the first person who said it was a coup d’etat but I>am providing the documents to show how it was a coup d’etat.”>>Exact fatality number unknown>>The declassified documents have included reports fielded by foreign>correspondents who were in Kuala Lumpur at the time, dispatches by the>British High Commission personnel who closely followed the event andvarious>other confidential reports from the diplomat circle.>>It is considerably the first time a complete recount of the tragedy is made>available to the Malaysian public, as many foreign correspondent reports>were previously banned while local documents are inaccessible.>>However, what could not be established in the book is another secrecy, the>real number of deaths.>>Official figures said the May 13 riots claimed 196 lives, 180 were wounded>by firearms and 259 by other weapons, 9,143 persons were arrested out of>whom 5,561 were charged in court, 6,000 persons rendered homeless, at>least 211 vehicles and 753 buildings were destroyed or damaged.>>The declassified documents and international correspondents at the time>nevertheless have calculated a much higher number of fatalities but an>exact number could not be ascertained, although it was common knowledge the>victims are majority ethnic Chinese.>>Kua said it is his hope to smash two myths with the publication of the>book.>>”One is racial riot will occur when the Malays are not happy, that’s whyyou>need the New Economic Policy, affirmative action policy et cetera,otherwise>the Malays will be unhappy and there will be riot.>>”This is the first myth we should dismantle as documents showed some people>were involved in making it (the May 13) happened with the connivance of the>police and army,” he stressed.>>The second myth, Kua said, is academicians and pluralist theorists who>uphold the views that riots and conflicts will occur naturally inmulti-racial country.>>”I am questioning this. The role of the state is very important at a>particular historical conjuncture. Malays, Chinese and Indians don’t>suddenly decide to fight in conflict, it doesn’t happen like that,” hesaid.>>Asked on whether there is any fear that the authorities might move to ban>the publication of the book, as in the case of a recent ban slapped on a>book about the Kampung Medan clashes, Kua responded:>>”In the age of the internet, what does banning a book mean? We can put it>on the Web, you can’t do anything.”

Please read the following blog by a famous and intelligent lawyer about the special position of the Malay and bumiputera as mentioned in Article 153.

http://www.malikimtiaz.blog...

"I say this to lay foundation for the question of whether the Federal Constitution does provide for a privileged existence in the manner suggested at the general assembly.

The constitutional provision pivotal to any discussion of this subject is article 153. It refers to the ‘special position’ of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and declares that it is the responsibility of the Yang Dipertuan Agong to safeguard these communities and the legitimate interests of other communities. It does not describe this ‘special position’ as a privileged status.

The founders of the nation did not at any point in time contemplate the creation of a two-tiered society such as some of some might have us believe. They contemplated the possibility that due to historical factors there might be a need to introduce certain measures so as not to allow for the dislocation or marginalizing of certain communities. This was not intended to translate into a promotion of particular communities to the detriment of others.

For this reason, article 153 recognises the legitimate interests of other communities. Further, it provides the means to ensure an adequate balance in the way protection measures are deployed. It is in this light that provision is made for reservation of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and permits and licences where such are required under federal law. This balance is guaranteed further by the express declaration that the provision is not aimed at empowering the restriction of business or trade solely for the purpose of the protective measures. In short, there is no basis for wholesale reservations or quotas." http://www.malikimtiaz.blog...

"Put another way, despite suggestions to the contrary the Federal Constitution does not lend itself to any notions of a privileged existence for any community. It does however envisage a protected status for the Malays and the indigenous which allows for selective measures to be taken fairly and reasonably to a particular end. Any policy of the Federal Government aimed at achieving this end, whether the National Economic Policy, the New Development Policy or otherwise, cannot be seen as vesting greater rights than those contemplated under Article 153. Any other reading would allow for the kinds of abuses that are apparent.

The analysis offered above is not a difficult one. Article 153 is clear. It lends itself to affirmative action where such action is needed. Political expediency has resulted in the provision being mischaracterized and used to particular ends. This in itself is not surprising as politicians will operate as politicians do. What is of interest to me is how and why the characterization has been permitted by Malaysian society to perpetuate to the extent that as we come into our 50th year as an independent nation, the ‘two-tier’ notion has become so entrenched in our social landscape. And why is it that even as the notion continues to divide us, we insist on describing what happens in the country as being a part of a democratic process?

One of the principal reasons for this sad state of affairs is the nurturing of a climate of fear. Laws that allow for preventive detention without trial like the Internal Security Act, that stifle free expression such as the Sedition Act and the Printing Presses and Publications Act and which impede necessary access to vital information such as the Official Secrets Act have kept many Malaysians in the dark and in fear. If they have not been directly threatened or attacked, these laws have allowed the unscrupulous to demonize concerned Malaysians as being anti-Malay or anti-constitutional. They have allowed for the perversion of the social contract theory.

Additionally, a conservative Judiciary which has shied away from developing a strong civil rights tradition in our legal system has perhaps unwittingly allowed for the concomitant undermining of the rule of law. This has weakened our sense of right and wrong.

In this way, policy stereotypes have been permitted to develop and in effect become the law. Our claims to social integration are a hollow boast. Harmony cannot be found at the bottom of the gun barrel that supremacist Malay thinking is pointing at all others including non-extremist Malays.

If UMNO is serious about making amends for what transpired at the general assembly, let us hear then from its leaders of a plan by which the Federal Government intends to take us back to the spirit of protection and the dismantling of the ‘privilege’ mindset. Let us hear an admission of how the climate of fear has led to the development of racist tendencies that no amount of platitudes will help us deal with.

Until then, Malaysians should be forgiven for thinking that they have arrived at the beginning of the end."

I support the Constitution of the special position of the Malay, the role of the Sultan, the preservation of the Malay language and culture. I am glad of the identity of Malaysia so far being rich in culture and having the Bahasa Malaysia language and an official religion of Islam. This are all symbols to celebrate the rich diversity we have. Also it is meant to ensure the Malay culture does not go extinct. This is important as in other countries, the red indians or the Hawaiians fear the loss of their culture, and affirmative action is in place to safe guard against that.

So the special position of the Malays in getting training and in giving them aid when they need it is praise worthy. But, what is to be scorned at:

1. Bumiputera getting housing discount of houses above RM300,000.

2. Bumiputera getting contracts when they are not capable to do it.

3. Chancellors of Universities being elected even when they are not capable.

4. Professors who are not Bumiputera do not get recognized encouraging brain drain in Malaysia and the status of Malaysian universities dropping drastically to a pathetic state losing to all Asian countries.

Hawaiichee, only now I realise what a SILLY person you are. You are in fact running out of arguments hence you resort to a pethetically desperate tactic by copying articles from other websites, with hope that it will help counter the findings and exposures given by this blog. But it didn't work. And you keep copying almost the same materials for commenting several article in this blog. Do you ever aware of your desperate action? Pathetic!